LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for CASLL-L Archives


CASLL-L Archives

CASLL-L Archives


CASLL-L@LISTSERV.UTORONTO.CA


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

CASLL-L Home

CASLL-L Home

CASLL-L  May 2005

CASLL-L May 2005

Subject:

Re: More about the conference

From:

Andrea Lunsford <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

CASLL/Inkshed <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Fri, 27 May 2005 10:25:19 -0700

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (243 lines)

All this conversation is making me miss Inkshed SO much:  where and when
is the meeting next year?

Andrea

At 10:02 AM 5/27/2005, you wrote:
>I just want to say Ditto to everything Ginny just said.  And add one other
>possible non-Inksheddian sort of suggestion that we consider the
>possibility of ONE afternoon during the conference of just 2 concurrent
>sessions (that is, only 2 time periods out of the whole conference, with 2
>sessions meeting at a time)--I know we all want to hear everything and
>there is benefit in that, but we are also a diverse enough group that we do
>have some sub-groupings possible where people could choose by their needs
>or interests in that particular year.  Especially if it's a matter of
>funding for people who couldn't come otherwise.
>
>A few concurrent sessions make more sense to me than changing things that
>actually make the Inkshed gatherings so different from more rushed and
>pressured conferences (focused /silence/ for writing and gathering our
>thoughts at regular intervals during the day, as Ginny has described so
>eloquently, make INkshed gatherings unique in my experience--and the
>discussions at Inkshed always seemed richer than those at other conferences
>/because/ we took the time to be quiet and write before talking).  As long
>as almost all sessions are NOT concurrent, especially opening and closing
>sessions, I think the feel of the conference would remain much the same.  A
>good candidate for concurrent sessions would be precisely the research
>updates Jane was talking about--that by their very nature don't necessarily
>fit into the conference theme (people could select which research projects
>seemed most important or intriguing or connected the most with their own
>work--and we could use the inkshedding reports as a way of reading about
>what happened in the sessions we couldn't attend).  If we inkshed less
>often, then a big issue for me becomes the question "Who loses out?" on the
>gift of writing to take home that Doreen mentions, written responses that
>have been so helpful to so many of us as we continued to work on the issues
>we had presented about.
>
>I'm feeling that loss keenly this year myself since I was hoping so much
>for some inksheds that would help my own thinking on a  project I've been
>slowly trying to make headway on for 14 years, the Writing Skills
>Inventory.  I'll also emphasize that if we do have some poster
>presentations or copies of papers, serious time needs to be built into the
>program for studying these and for inkshedding about them.  When I agreed
>to bring my work as a poster presentation, though I was disappointed, I was
>remembering that at PEI, quite a significant chunk of time had been set
>aside for actually taking in the many fine poster presentations and
>inkshedding about them (I still remember some of them keenly--and there
>were a lot of them, not just 2).  With the conference schedule so full this
>time, people just did not have a spare moment to do additional reading and
>inkshedding about the work on display.
>
>I had proposed an interactive session where people would fill out the WSI
>themselves after a brief intro from me, giving some background on it and
>what it is meant to accomplish; I would have loved to be able to answer
>some questions about it on the spot in a concurrent session, even without
>everyone there, since that would have helped me see right away and clarify
>what I had failed to make clear .  Instead, I received responses from only
>3 people (who I think of as heroic--thank you!--given the claims on
>everyone's time and also the absolute necessity for us to be able to get
>outside and enjoy that gorgeous place at least a bit!). Unfortunately, what
>their responses mainly revealed was that I had not had time to explain
>clearly enough how the WSI works, what I see as its pedagogical value, and
>what the WSI attempts to measure (knowledge of terms being one thing I very
>much want to measure--so that if a student doesn't have a clue what either
>f"reewriting" or "inkshedding" are at the beginning of the course but that
>same student understands those practices quite well by the end of the
>course, that--to me--is a major accomplishment that the WSI allows me to
>record, for both me and the student).
>
>So, I'm casting my vote for,
>--yes, fewer presentations accepted in future (I say this even as one of
>the two poster presentation people this time round) ;
>--one afternoon of concurrent sessions (2 sessions, with 2 meeting at a
>time, so 4 in all--perhaps to always include the research updates as a
>standing category that doesn't have to fit into the conference theme);
>--more time to get outside and explore where we are (perhaps with some
>inkshedding time allowed out of doors? an assignment to return in 2 hours
>with one or two short inksheds to share about the presentations that just
>finished?);
>--more interactive sessions (thinking of ways to share ideas and what we're
>doing without simply reading a paper--if we're going to just /read/
>hardcopy and inkshed about it, though, I think we could do that all year
>long via email and the web; sitting around reading formal papers and
>commenting on  them just doesn't feel like a good use of our time together
>to me--though perhaps we could all have one or two things to read BEFORE we
>arrive at the conference, something we can bring an inkshed about and share
>sometime in the first 24 hours as a lead-in to a discussion?
>--renewing our commitment to inkshedding as a practice for deepening and
>enriching discussion and allowing generous amounts of time for it (and not
>as something we just do mechanically, but that we value for all the reasons
>that have been brought up on this list since the conference).  For me,
>there's something almost spiritual about the silence of us all writing and
>thinking together--I have way too little silence in my busy life,
>especially communal silence with that incredibly powerful sensation of so
>much heartfelt and smart thinking going on at the same time in one space.
>It helps me focus intensely in a way I often find difficult (and hardly
>ever am able to do at any other conferences). I would hate to lose
>that--Inkshed is the only place I experience it (except for moments when I
>am inkshedding in class with my students--but that's always a bit different
>since my students, not matter how wonderful they might be, are are not you
>guys).
>
>SOrry for the length of this--I actually started it out just intending to
>say "Amen" to Ginny's posting.  By the way, in case anyone was wondering, I
>heard only from two other people off list that they had been very sick
>after Inkshed as well--I hope that the rest of you all stayed healthy.
>Best, Betsy
>
>
>At 08:58 AM 5/27/2005, you wrote:
>>Russ Hunt wrote:
>>
>>>I think this is the problem, or a problem:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Do we have to be cued to inkshed? At one of the tables I was
>>>>at, some of us just wrote in response to sessions anyway, even
>>>>if not cued. Don't know what happened to them after they were
>>>>read at the table . . .
>>>
>>>There needs to be a structure around them -- it's not just
>>>writing, but agreeing on some more or less formal way in which
>>>they get read and used. Otherwise it's freewriting -- which is
>>>fine, but there's no need to structure an occasion in which
>>>people all do it.
>>>
>>>One danger, I think, is that inkshedding becomes a sort of
>>>ritual that we all do because we've always done it, and because
>>>that's the name of the conference . . . but that it stops
>>>serving the main purpose of the conference, which is (I'd argue)
>>>to explore ways in which we can make this gathering of people
>>>whose common interests include literacy and learning a more
>>>effective and rich occasion for exchanging ideas and values.
>>>
>>>-- Russ
>>>St. Thomas University
>>>http://www.StThomasU.ca/~hunt/
>>>
>>>                -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
>>>  To leave the list, send a SIGNOFF CASLL command to
>>>  [log in to unmask] or, if you experience difficulties,
>>>         write to Russ Hunt at [log in to unmask]
>>>
>>>For the list archives and information about the organization,
>>>    its newsletter, and the annual conference, go to
>>>              http://www.stu.ca/inkshed/
>>>                 -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
>>>
>>I'd like to add my two cents here - but to begin I'll reiterate the
>>thanks that others have offered to Jane and her "team."  Inkshed 22 was
>>well-organized and stimulating, and the location was totally beautiful.
>>A whole lot of work went into making that happen, and I'm really
>>grateful to the organizers.
>>
>>About "inkshedding" ....   I've only been to two Inksheds, so I don't
>>have a whole lot to base this on. I have, however, been to lots of
>>/other/ conferences, so I have plenty to compare the Inkshed concept
>>/to.  /And when I went to my first Inkshed in P.E.I. several years ago,
>>I found the practice of inkshedding to be an excellent focussing and
>>reflecting tool. It was also wonderful to be able to take away and
>>ponder the diverse written responses to my own presentation. I would
>>hate to see the inkshedding process become something rote that we do
>>mainly because we've always done it... I'd also hate to see the process
>>eliminated, or adapted into a periodic, generalized response to a number
>>of sessions.
>>
>>To eliminate inkshedding from our conferences would be to do away with
>>the rich exhange Russ mentions, above. Yes, some of that exchange can
>>occur through discussion - as happens at other conferences (and I do
>>agree with Doug that inkshedding should not /preclude/ oral discussion).
>>But I think that the kind of meditative process that occurs in solitary,
>>reflective written response is a rare and special opportunity our
>>conferences offer us - an opportunity we seldom get otherwise, unless we
>>are students in classes that use inkshedding or disciplined individuals
>>who keep voluminous journals. I don't know about any of you, but neither
>>of those describes /my /daily circumstance. So inkshedding at these
>>conferences permits us to engage in reflection in an unusual and
>>privileged way. And obviously, the products of this process are a
>>treasure trove for the person who gets to take them home as critique of
>>his or her work....
>>
>>But to use inkshedding as a kind of summarizing technique at two or
>>three points in the day - or to do it without a cue when one is so
>>moved, as Roger mentioned - seems problematic to me. I engaged in both
>>these kinds of writing at Inkshed 22, and both of them left me
>>dissatisified.  Doing a "group inkshed" didn't work for me for two
>>reasons. For one thing, the "common theme" according to which
>>presentations tend to get grouped  together doesn't always end up being
>>as common a theme as expected. Therefore, the two or three presentations
>>about which we might write may not invite a joint inkshed, even though
>>on paper they had sounded as though they would. Also, though, I found
>>that if I held off responding until I'd listened to a number of
>>speakers, I wasn't able to give as focussed and complete a    response
>>to the first speaker as I was to the last; my brain just wouldn't let
>>me  :-(      Inkshedding without a cue didn't work for me, either.
>>Actually, it wasn't the lack of /cue/ that fooled me up:
>>thought-provoking presentations tend to provide sufficient cue to
>>respond, as Roger suggests. But when not given silent time in which to
>>/do/ the inkshedding, I didn't like to do it. Doing so meant I wasn't
>>giving my undivided attention to the next speaker - so I just gave up
>>writing anything down, at all...
>>
>>So for me the solution would be (perhaps unfortunately) to limit the
>>number of presentations at Inkshed conferences, even though that is also
>>a very non-Inksheddian-thing to do. Having an all-inclusive conference
>>is a commendable  goal, but something seems to need to be sacrificed,
>>here - and I'd rather have fewer presentations (even if it was mine that
>>was eliminated) than give up the very process that makes this conference
>>one-of-a-kind.
>>
>>What a long two cents'-worth that turned out to be.
>>
>>Ginny Ryan
>>
>>                -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
>>  To leave the list, send a SIGNOFF CASLL command to
>>  [log in to unmask] or, if you experience difficulties,
>>         write to Russ Hunt at [log in to unmask]
>>
>>For the list archives and information about the organization,
>>    its newsletter, and the annual conference, go to
>>              http://www.stu.ca/inkshed/
>>                 -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
>
>                -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
>  To leave the list, send a SIGNOFF CASLL command to
>  [log in to unmask] or, if you experience difficulties,
>         write to Russ Hunt at [log in to unmask]
>
>For the list archives and information about the organization,
>    its newsletter, and the annual conference, go to
>              http://www.stu.ca/inkshed/
>                 -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

                -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
  To leave the list, send a SIGNOFF CASLL command to
  [log in to unmask] or, if you experience difficulties,
         write to Russ Hunt at [log in to unmask]

For the list archives and information about the organization,
    its newsletter, and the annual conference, go to
              http://www.stu.ca/inkshed/
                 -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

September 2020
August 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
September 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011, Week 1
January 2011
December 2010
October 2010
April 2010
February 2010
January 2010
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
June 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
October 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998
April 1998
March 1998
February 1998
January 1998
December 1997
November 1997
October 1997
September 1997
August 1997
July 1997
June 1997
May 1997
April 1997
March 1997
February 1997
January 1997
December 1996
November 1996
October 1996
September 1996
August 1996
July 1996
June 1996
May 1996
April 1996
March 1996
February 1996
January 1996
December 1995
November 1995
October 1995
September 1995
August 1995
July 1995
June 1995
May 1995
April 1995
March 1995
February 1995
January 1995

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.UTORONTO.CA

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager